MaxYakov Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) 1000 boats together have power like 50 000HP - 100 000HP.This is power plant of the biggest warship of WWII or today nuke submarine. Have you seen battleship like "Missouri" or nuke sub going full throttle on high seas?Now imagine she is anchored under bridge here and going full throttle? No effect? This is simple physics on grammar school level. Plodprasop has a disciple. . Yamato - japanese No1 battleship displacement - 72 000tons powerplant 150Mwatts speed 50km/hour - about 15mtr/sec Chaopraya flow --- 3 500tons/sec will you see the difference between these two numbers: Yamato displacement : 72 000tons Chiaopraya flow 3 500tons ? 20(twenty) times that battleship had propelers - exactly the same device which is used in every boat,just bigger. So, are you saying that the Chao Phraya could sink the Yamoto in < 20 seconds or are you trying to start another WW II off-topic, re-enactment? BTW, that would be 4-5 K metric tons/sec Phraya flow from what I read, but the tide state and how many boats were thrashing water were not mentioned. Edited October 10, 2011 by MaxYakov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 1000 boats together have power like 50 000HP - 100 000HP.This is power plant of the biggest warship of WWII or today nuke submarine. Have you seen battleship like "Missouri" or nuke sub going full throttle on high seas?Now imagine she is anchored under bridge here and going full throttle? No effect? This is simple physics on grammar school level. Plodprasop has a disciple. . Yamato - japanese No1 battleship displacement - 72 000tons powerplant 150Mwatts speed 50km/hour - about 15mtr/sec Chaopraya flow --- 3 500tons/sec will you see the difference between these two numbers: Yamato displacement : 72 000tons Chiaopraya flow 3 500tons ? 20(twenty) times that battleship had propelers - exactly the same device which is used in every boat,just bigger. IF the Yamato was in the Chao Phraya river.... you really think it would elicit a demonstrable difference in the flow of the river? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloudhopper Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 1000 boats together have power like 50 000HP - 100 000HP.This is power plant of the biggest warship of WWII or today nuke submarine. Have you seen battleship like "Missouri" or nuke sub going full throttle on high seas?Now imagine she is anchored under bridge here and going full throttle? No effect? This is simple physics on grammar school level. Sure it will have local effects but none whatever on the overall flooding. Apparently we will all get to see a demonstration soon enough, or at least glowing reports for local consumption about this national technological triumph.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) 1000 boats together have power like 50 000HP - 100 000HP.This is power plant of the biggest warship of WWII or today nuke submarine. Have you seen battleship like "Missouri" or nuke sub going full throttle on high seas?Now imagine she is anchored under bridge here and going full throttle? No effect? This is simple physics on grammar school level. Plodprasop has a disciple. . Yamato - japanese No1 battleship displacement - 72 000tons powerplant 150Mwatts speed 50km/hour - about 15mtr/sec Chaopraya flow --- 3 500tons/sec will you see the difference between these two numbers: Yamato displacement : 72 000tons Chiaopraya flow 3 500tons ? 20(twenty) times that battleship had propelers - exactly the same device which is used in every boat,just bigger. IF the Yamato was in the Chao Phraya river.... you really think it would elicit a demonstrable difference in the flow of the river? IF it were lying across the channel and in its usual state (submerged), it's a possibility, however remote. I gather that the water velocity is minimal near channel-bottom (from that instructive PDF on channel flow that was posted earlier). Edited October 10, 2011 by MaxYakov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt60 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 They need to be careful, too many boats and they may empty it Bet they haven't thought of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Yamato - japanese No1 battleship displacement - 72 000tons powerplant 150Mwatts speed 50km/hour - about 15mtr/sec Chaopraya flow --- 3 500tons/sec will you see the difference between these two numbers: Yamato displacement : 72 000tons Chiaopraya flow 3 500tons ? 20(twenty) times that battleship had propelers - exactly the same device which is used in every boat,just bigger. I think you need to read up on what "displacement" in relation to a ship means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_%28ship%29 A ship's displacement is its mass at any given time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 1000 boats together have power like 50 000HP - 100 000HP.This is power plant of the biggest warship of WWII or today nuke submarine. Have you seen battleship like "Missouri" or nuke sub going full throttle on high seas?Now imagine she is anchored under bridge here and going full throttle? No effect? This is simple physics on grammar school level. Sure it will have local effects but none whatever on the overall flooding. Apparently we will all get to see a demonstration soon enough, or at least glowing reports for local consumption about this national technological triumph.. I'm waiting with abated (I know it should be 'baited' for this topic) breath for the 'Unintentional Consequences' of this NTT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjag Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 you missed the point completely ,but luckily the authoritys have scrapped the idea already and cut the number down to 100 boats Someone quietly pointed out that they don't have 1000 large boats? I have read the boat Idea is stupid--other posts say it's a practical Idea, and all are talking about power to get shut of water by quickening the flow out. If it were to work even a little bit why hasn't anyone suggested the Thai aircraft carrier---power naval destroyers power patrol boats, is the navy involved?? and if not why not?? surely a few big powerful ones are better than river boats, or is the navy laughing at this whole episode. Maybe I have missed the boat (sorry for the pun) somewhere, as there have been so many posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realthaideal Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Thank goodness someone understands displacement. That volume of displaced h20 that the battleship would take up would actually cause an increase in water height too. So.... negative impact. Displacement is when you go in the bathtub and the water level rises. You displace a physical amount of water. Using accurate measures we could calculate your volume and density if we wanted. Anyway, given the tremendous volume of the water flow, the thrust of the engines is just a drop in the ocean. It ain't gonna do sh$t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveromagnino Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Basically, here is why the idea is not going to work. 1 the power of the ships added up is tiny compared to the amount of water flowing down as a result of gravity; it is like if everyone in the country lines up with paddles and pushes the water downstream with paddles...it might make a difference but not enough to be measureable 2 the idea of fixing the ship to an object requires an object that is designed to take horizontal load; bridges etc are almost always under compression/tension vertically; they are not designed particularly to take large horizontal pulling loads. Therefore how many ships can be run is questionable. If you do not attach the boat to anything, then it is pushing the water downstream (assuming it is running upstream) but it is also pushing water around its hull shape upstream and out to the sides (the wake of a ship). The net result is nothing 3 water flows through the river fastest in the area with least resistance; along the lines of the LA water ducts or pipes. If you have a rocky bottom then it is going to slow the water down (hence why water flows slowest at the bottom, it's a function of laminar flow). Same theory in boat design or bridges. Which is why bridges don't have a ton of pylons if there is a river below them. This idea is going to first bring up 100 large shapes up a river where flow is critical, and then plant these large shapes into the middle of the flow of the river, causing increased, not decreased resistance in the area where the water is flowing; so it may make the river flow marginally more slowly rather than faster; however the net result of any of this boat stuff is relatively small except for point 4. This is the displacement issue; actually by bringing the boats upstream, it is also causing the water level to increase not decrease (by a function of the displacement of the boat) and so 1000 boats all converging in one tiny space, might actually almost manage to make a difference in water level....but probably not a significant one unless someone would be silly enough to bring up a huge navy battle ship 4 flood control is all about controlling variance when the flood levels are critically high; if the flood walls are 2m and the level is 1.9m, you cannot handle a strong variance even if the level is 'on average' 1.9m anything over 2m is catastrophic. Flood walls are not exceptionally strong. What the esteemed member of the house is proposing will result in substantial variance; waves that will be up to 0.2-.3m in height potentially....this has potential not to just be a waste of fuel, time and effort, but to create the sort of waves that will break the barriers which are only just hanging on now 5 even if you increase the velocity of the water at a given point, if the tide is up and the water flow is reduced, then pushing the water at one point is like pushing the water uphill; unless you push a substantial portion all at once (which you cannot do due to spilling over the flood walls downstream) out into the sea then it will just settle to the same equilibrium point almost immediately after the activity. I would recommend to our esteemed science minister that perhaps a series of explosions carefully timed one after the other will be able to create a 20 foot standing wave that will flow, tsunami like, down to the ocean never to return. Much like this idea, it will cause massive problems downstream, is a waste of our money and will not work, but unlike this idea, at least a few people will get to surf a very very long wave, in some totally knarly tubes and pull a few rad cut backs and possibly dye their hair blonde and wear hoodies and add 'dude' onto everything. Basically, it is not a smart idea, and anyone who thinks it is a good idea probably is only saying that because they are a shipping magnate, and it is their shipping billions that are speaking. For all ship owners, I know what is displacement, I can tie a few knots and I believe I have a number of places you can tie your frigate to (my mate has a condo with a really strong railing on it) to motor up the river in a fixed position. Please give me some of your billions and I will immediately retract this post, and get ready to speak like a pirate. AVAST Behind. See? I must have shipping in my blood and access to a group of scurvy sea dogs....certainly the amount of seamen in my personal submarine is ample, and ready and primed at all times, I also have watched The Pirates of Ben's Pants a number of times and met a guy who knew someone who played an extra in U571. All of these characteristics, as well as making me quite well suited to a spot of nefarious shiver me timbering, will help you to drain the Rivers...I believe I can get the river to a tolerable level by December..... Edited October 10, 2011 by steveromagnino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wana Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Thank goodness someone understands displacement. That volume of displaced h20 that the battleship would take up would actually cause an increase in water height too. So.... negative impact. Displacement is when you go in the bathtub and the water level rises. You displace a physical amount of water. Using accurate measures we could calculate your volume and density if we wanted. Anyway, given the tremendous volume of the water flow, the thrust of the engines is just a drop in the ocean. It ain't gonna do sh$t. put big boats in the river ,the levels will rise for sure it will also cause smaller faster streams around the boats which will erode more of the river banks away turn on a garden hose ,then squeeze it to reduce the width by 50% and the water will shoot twice as far .............. they wont be able to do it on a large enough scale anyway to make any differnce but if they could triple the water flow it woould have serious impact on the sandbags they have built on each side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabySun Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 1000 boats together have power like 50 000HP - 100 000HP.This is power plant of the biggest warship of WWII or today nuke submarine. Have you seen battleship like "Missouri" or nuke sub going full throttle on high seas?Now imagine she is anchored under bridge here and going full throttle? No effect? This is simple physics on grammar school level. Plodprasop has a disciple. . Yamato - japanese No1 battleship displacement - 72 000tons powerplant 150Mwatts speed 50km/hour - about 15mtr/sec Chaopraya flow --- 3 500tons/sec will you see the difference between these two numbers: Yamato displacement : 72 000tons Chiaopraya flow 3 500tons ? 20(twenty) times that battleship had propelers - exactly the same device which is used in every boat,just bigger. IF the Yamato was in the Chao Phraya river.... you really think it would elicit a demonstrable difference in the flow of the river? 10% may be 20 % increase of flow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Apparently we will all get to see a demonstration soon enough, or at least glowing reports for local consumption about this national technological triumph.. Tomorrow's the big day. Plodprasop's Poppycock 2011. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaimite Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) I think everybody is missing the point. It does not matter how effective any proposed solution is or is not. It's quite simple. Over-hype the possible effects of the flood, and then take some trivial or insignificant action. When the floods are not as bad as the hyped predictions, the government can claim success due to their forethought and actions. They do not care if the "educated" elite know the truth or not, because they are not the ones keeping them in power. Edited October 10, 2011 by thaimite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabySun Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Thank goodness someone understands displacement. That volume of displaced h20 that the battleship would take up would actually cause an increase in water height too. So.... negative impact. Displacement is when you go in the bathtub and the water level rises. You displace a physical amount of water. Using accurate measures we could calculate your volume and density if we wanted. Anyway, given the tremendous volume of the water flow, the thrust of the engines is just a drop in the ocean. It ain't gonna do sh$t. we are very near sea - on the sea level,you will not change sea level with any battleship - you need quite large asteroid(wait till 2012!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratcatcher Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Apparently we will all get to see a demonstration soon enough, or at least glowing reports for local consumption about this national technological triumph.. Tomorrow's the big day. Plodprasop's Poppycock 2011. . No matter what happens on the big day, it WILL be a success. Nothing less can be tolerated. There is no way they can actually measure the impact of the armada of 100 ships, boats, canoes, bathtubs or whatever vessels show up. Accolades will be received all round at Don Mueang H.Q. Champagne will be consumed. P.M. Yingluck will beam larger than usual. Mr Plod Prasop will be a national hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveromagnino Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Thank goodness someone understands displacement. That volume of displaced h20 that the battleship would take up would actually cause an increase in water height too. So.... negative impact. Displacement is when you go in the bathtub and the water level rises. You displace a physical amount of water. Using accurate measures we could calculate your volume and density if we wanted. Anyway, given the tremendous volume of the water flow, the thrust of the engines is just a drop in the ocean. It ain't gonna do sh$t. we are very near sea - on the sea level,you will not change sea level with any battleship - you need quite large asteroid(wait till 2012!) So are you saying if we take a battleship that is 100m long and displaces a very similar amount of space to the width and length and depth of the river that it occupies, that it will have no effect on the river level above it....because 'on the sea level, you will not change sea level with any battleship'? For this effort would it not be easier to simply focus on cleaning all the bridge crossings from Samut Prakarn north, and cleaning them of debris? I am willing to bet that will be a much more positive effect that this battleship flotilla attempt to acheive something that will be a new 'sient diskoveree' for Thailand...that defies the laws of physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Basically, here is why the idea is not going to work. 1 the power of the ships added up is tiny compared to the amount of water flowing down as a result of gravity; it is like if everyone in the country lines up with paddles and pushes the water downstream with paddles...it might make a difference but not enough to be measureable I've been thinking about an energy model for this to arrive at the percentage of the kinetic energy that the boats would be contributing to the total energy of the river. It's fairly easy to determine a ballpark kinetic energy value for the river (maybe). It's determining the combined kinetic energy contribution of the boats with the variables. Even though I agree with most that feel there wouldn't be enough contributed energy by the boats, I'd still like to see rough figures for it. Ideally, from the good Minister of Science and Technology. 2 the idea of fixing the ship to an object requires an object that is designed to take horizontal load; bridges etc are almost always under compression/tension vertically; they are not designed particularly to take large horizontal pulling loads. Therefore how many ships can be run is questionable. If you do not attach the boat to anything, then it is pushing the water downstream (assuming it is running upstream) but it is also pushing water around its hull shape upstream and out to the sides (the wake of a ship). The net result is nothing I agree that the boats must be tethered. I'd be interested to know the tethering methods they have been using. There could be those 'Unintended Consequences' that they probably won't be mentioning. 3 water flows through the river fastest in the area with least resistance; along the lines of the LA water ducts or pipes. If you have a rocky bottom then it is going to slow the water down (hence why water flows slowest at the bottom, it's a function of laminar flow). Same theory in boat design or bridges. Which is why bridges don't have a ton of pylons if there is a river below them. This idea is going to first bring up 100 large shapes up a river where flow is critical, and then plant these large shapes into the middle of the flow of the river, causing increased, not decreased resistance in the area where the water is flowing; so it may make the river flow marginally more slowly rather than faster; however the net result of any of this boat stuff is relatively small except for point 4. This is the displacement issue; actually by bringing the boats upstream, it is also causing the water level to increase not decrease (by a function of the displacement of the boat) and so 1000 boats all converging in one tiny space, might actually almost manage to make a difference in water level....but probably not a significant one unless someone would be silly enough to bring up a huge navy battle ship I don't believe they would attempt anything except using tethered boats. The 'Unintended Consequences' of collisions is always there if they attempt this away from shore. No matter where the boats are placed, the increased water level from boat displacement will be distributed throughout the river. Even a 'huge navy battle ship' (if one could find one) would be insignificant as the displaced water would be distributed and it's displacement is relatively insignificant relative to the volume of the Phraya. There's not indication that they'll bring in additional vessels for this, but someone was wondering where the Thai Navy was with this. 4 flood control is all about controlling variance when the flood levels are critically high; if the flood walls are 2m and the level is 1.9m, you cannot handle a strong variance even if the level is 'on average' 1.9m anything over 2m is catastrophic. Flood walls are not exceptionally strong. What the esteemed member of the house is proposing will result in substantial variance; waves that will be up to 0.2-.3m in height potentially....this has potential not to just be a waste of fuel, time and effort, but to create the sort of waves that will break the barriers which are only just hanging on now 5 even if you increase the velocity of the water at a given point, if the tide is up and the water flow is reduced, then pushing the water at one point is like pushing the water uphill; unless you push a substantial portion all at once (which you cannot do due to spilling over the flood walls downstream) out into the sea then it will just settle to the same equilibrium point almost immediately after the activity. I would recommend to our esteemed science minister that perhaps a series of explosions carefully timed one after the other will be able to create a 20 foot standing wave that will flow, tsunami like, down to the ocean never to return. Much like this idea, it will cause massive problems downstream, is a waste of our money and will not work, but unlike this idea, at least a few people will get to surf a very very long wave, in some totally knarly tubes and pull a few rad cut backs and possibly dye their hair blonde and wear hoodies and add 'dude' onto everything. Basically, it is not a smart idea, and anyone who thinks it is a good idea probably is only saying that because they are a shipping magnate, and it is their shipping billions that are speaking. For all ship owners, I know what is displacement, I can tie a few knots and I believe I have a number of places you can tie your frigate to (my mate has a condo with a really strong railing on it) to motor up the river in a fixed position. Please give me some of your billions and I will immediately retract this post, and get ready to speak like a pirate. AVAST Behind. See? I must have shipping in my blood and access to a group of scurvy sea dogs....certainly the amount of seamen in my personal submarine is ample, and ready and primed at all times, I also have watched The Pirates of Ben's Pants a number of times and met a guy who knew someone who played an extra in U571. All of these characteristics, as well as making me quite well suited to a spot of nefarious shiver me timbering, will help you to drain the Rivers...I believe I can get the river to a tolerable level by December..... 4) Increased wave height - If the boats are tethered/moored at shore, then the waves would have to be from the prop wash only. We need a prop wash model for this, but from aerial snapshots I've seen of boats on the Phraya, they are very small compared to the hull wakes. 5) I believe they're well-aware of the effect of the tide on this unfalsifiable science experiment. Do you recommend nuclear devices to the minister for the multiple explosions that would create the 20 foot wave, Dude? As to the remainder of the post ... If I were you, I'd, Arrgh, cut back on the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' a wee bit, Matey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaidam Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 To put the concept in laymans terms, think of it as breaking wind in a hurricane to ensure the storm passes faster. Equally effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Apparently we will all get to see a demonstration soon enough, or at least glowing reports for local consumption about this national technological triumph.. Tomorrow's the big day. Plodprasop's Poppycock 2011. . No matter what happens on the big day, it WILL be a success. Nothing less can be tolerated. There is no way they can actually measure the impact of the armada of 100 ships, boats, canoes, bathtubs or whatever vessels show up. Accolades will be received all round at Don Mueang H.Q. Champagne will be consumed. P.M. Yingluck will beam larger than usual. Mr Plod Prasop will be a national hero. Agree. Maybe he'll even be given a Nobel Peace Prize like another unfalsifiable, non-science experimenter of which we are all aware. But there are always those 'Unintended Consequences'. Perhaps one of the consequences will be the placement of a new Minister of S & T. Naaaaaah! BTW, did you mention something about PM Yingluck's beam being larger than usual - thinking too much about boats lately? OK, I'll give you credit for it. I guess 'will have a broader beam than usual' would have been too obvious. :jap: Edited October 10, 2011 by MaxYakov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveromagnino Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 4) Increased wave height - If the boats are tethered/moored at shore, then the waves would have to be from the prop wash only. We need a prop wash model for this, but from aerial snapshots I've seen of boats on the Phraya, they are very small compared to the hull wakes. As to the remainder of the post ... If I were you, I'd, Arrgh, cut back on the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' a wee bit, Matey. Ye speaks the truth, blister me barnacles! Ok land lubber, I think for looking at the wash of the props, you need to not look at a moving boat (or any of the little planing hull craft or barges), but look at a big tug or trading ship with some serious sized props which will probably be thrashing at mid power; they put out a reasonable wake on their own. As the boat is parked in the middle of the river, it is essentially travelling against the flow at around 8-10 knots (estimated flow) which will send up a wake of about .1-.3 of a meter depending on the boat size. Especially since the boat he is going to use will probably be big inefficient cargo boats and tugs and the like. I for one will be ROTFLOL and any other number of acronyms OMG if this guy's idea results in some unintended consequence hopefully involving a banana skin, his foot, and some cream pies flying in the air which he happens to be carrying. While not entirely flood or scheme related, the thought of such an incident always seems appealing. more appealing than thinking of how much tax I pay each year...to pay for this plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtom Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 The Marine Department and the Thai Ship Owners Association have jointly mobilized more than 100 boats to divert water from the Chao Phraya River into the sea. The operation is expected to begin from Ko Kret and end at the estuary of the Chao Phraya River. I still don't get it - begin from Ko Kret, end at the estuary? They tether all the boats to one bridge for some time, then to the next one downstream? Or a few boats at every suitable bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabySun Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Thank goodness someone understands displacement. That volume of displaced h20 that the battleship would take up would actually cause an increase in water height too. So.... negative impact. Displacement is when you go in the bathtub and the water level rises. You displace a physical amount of water. Using accurate measures we could calculate your volume and density if we wanted. Anyway, given the tremendous volume of the water flow, the thrust of the engines is just a drop in the ocean. It ain't gonna do sh$t. we are very near sea - on the sea level,you will not change sea level with any battleship - you need quite large asteroid(wait till 2012!) So are you saying if we take a battleship that is 100m long and displaces a very similar amount of space to the width and length and depth of the river that it occupies, that it will have no effect on the river level above it....because 'on the sea level, you will not change sea level with any battleship'? For this effort would it not be easier to simply focus on cleaning all the bridge crossings from Samut Prakarn north, and cleaning them of debris? I am willing to bet that will be a much more positive effect that this battleship flotilla attempt to acheive something that will be a new 'sient diskoveree' for Thailand...that defies the laws of physics. you are absolutly right my friend,but they are looking for emergency tools and they came with this idea of using 1000 boats.I just say that 1000 boats have the power of one big battleship - (which was 250 mtr long not 100mtr.) to illustrate the scale. they will not clean old debris to fast,I do not know how long it takes(years?),but boats? they have them along the river - hundreds if not thousands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParadiseLost Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 In order to help out I plan to mobilise people on Koh Samui and Koh Phangan: starting tomorrow everyone who can help is to meet on the north facing beaches - bring along any buckets you can. The plan is to bail water out of the gulf, thus lowering the Gulf level which will increase the Chao Phraya river flow dramatically! Bailed water will be carried overland to the southern shores for disposal - tenders are invited for the transportation contracts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveromagnino Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I still don't get it - begin from Ko Kret, end at the estuary? They tether all the boats to one bridge for some time, then to the next one downstream? Or a few boats at every suitable bridge? I believe no one really knows what is planned; I am in conversation with one of the captains of a boat supposed to be part of this exercise...he doesn't know how exactly or what exactly he is supposed to do; he thought it was dredging the Bangkok Bar somehow! Ah well you cannot be an expert of Sy-en and Teck-no-lo-yee as well as anything relating to the sea; as my gut tells me, there is no C in technology. Or in science. Well, ok, you probably say there is. And I ask you, where did you find that out? A Dictionary? Well that's where you went wrong. You should have asked your gut. And my gut says...no Cs. Our esteemed member of the house is also another chap who likes to think using his gut. As anyone who has seen him eat will tell you. He eats. And that food most likely goes into his gut. Where it goes from there, no one can be sure, but at least some might believe that it comes out in policy decisions such as these, in a magnificent metamorphasis; where somehow: the colour of the bowel.... gives way to the nuance of the vowel.... The paper of two ply.... lends inspiration for ideas to fly.... the fountain and the stool.... using horsepower as a tool.... playing battleships alone.... a vision to hone..... giving birth to a brown snake.... leads to how to drain this lake..... A river of yellow in front... a hundred fold boat stunt.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Brilliant, I must say, brilliant. Such concise truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 put big boats in the river ,the levels will rise for sure it will also cause smaller faster streams around the boats which will erode more of the river banks away turn on a garden hose ,then squeeze it to reduce the width by 50% and the water will shoot twice as far .............. they wont be able to do it on a large enough scale anyway to make any differnce but if they could triple the water flow it woould have serious impact on the sandbags they have built on each side No. The only reason water from a garden hose will shoot further when you squeeze it is because of the pressure behind it and the fact that it has no where to go. When you block a river, before it "shoots twice as far" it will rise to a certain level until the pressure is there to push it twice as far. If it flows over the banks upstream first, all you've done is make the problem worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtom Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Steveromagnino, thanks for making me feel less like a dimwit and for your always insightful and witty posts :jap:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveromagnino Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Steveromagnino, thanks for making me feel less like a dimwit and for your always insightful and witty posts :jap:. my pleasure; I am sure many people with even only some basic knowledge of finance, economics or in this case physics, are having a few moments where it seems like maybe they don't know anything since government policy is the exact opposite of that, and yet it seems hard to believe that anyone running a country could do so with economics 'by spongebob' but then again...right now a few million spongebobs would come in mighty handy for fixing this person that left their tap running. As one pundit joked about these farmers and villagers some of whom have been under 2m of water (well their stuff, not them personally) for 2 months now...if losing their crops doesn't bankrupt them, the water bill will :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wana Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 put big boats in the river ,the levels will rise for sure it will also cause smaller faster streams around the boats which will erode more of the river banks away turn on a garden hose ,then squeeze it to reduce the width by 50% and the water will shoot twice as far .............. they wont be able to do it on a large enough scale anyway to make any differnce but if they could triple the water flow it woould have serious impact on the sandbags they have built on each side No. The only reason water from a garden hose will shoot further when you squeeze it is because of the pressure behind it and the fact that it has no where to go. When you block a river, before it "shoots twice as far" it will rise to a certain level until the pressure is there to push it twice as far. If it flows over the banks upstream first, all you've done is make the problem worse. blocking the river with 1000 big boats will hinder the progress of escaping water ,since it cant escape "directly through" a boat it will be forced the sides in a smaller stream the smaller stream will have to choice but to travel faster / and or rise higher either way it happens its not good for riverbanks that are only made from a few rows of sandbags an operation like this could collapse banks and flood areas that might have stayed otherwise dry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts